Thursday, April 29, 2010

Blank sun, cosmic rays, clouds and cooling

Today's update: Cosmic Ray flux has hit an all time high for the space age! That should mean more clouds, increased albedo and a cooling earth--sorry AGW folk.

Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High 09.29.2009
September 29, 2009: Planning a trip to Mars? Take plenty of shielding. According to sensors on NASA's ACE (Advanced Composition Explorer) spacecraft, galactic cosmic rays have just hit a Space Age high.

"In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years," says Richard Mewaldt of Caltech. "The increase is significant, and it could mean we need to re-think how much radiation shielding astronauts take with them on deep-space missions."

Above: Energetic iron nuclei counted by the Cosmic Ray Isotope Spectrometer on NASA's ACE spacecraft reveal that cosmic ray levels have jumped 19% above the previous Space Age high.

The cause of the surge is solar minimum, a deep lull in solar activity that began around 2007 and continues today. Researchers have long known that cosmic rays go up when solar activity goes down. Right now solar activity is as weak as it has been in modern times, setting the stage for what Mewaldt calls "a perfect storm of cosmic rays."

One can look at the following picture to see that as the solar magnetic field has dropped, the cosmic ray intensity has risen strongly.

A theory that is gaining experimental support among some climatologists and solar scientists links the rise of cosmic ray flux to an increase in clouds

“Growing evidence, such as the correlations
between paleoclimate records and
solar and cosmic ray activity indicators
(e.g., 10Be, 14C), suggests that extraterrestrial
phenomena are responsible for at
least some climatic variability on time
scales ranging from days to millennia
(Friis-Christensen and Lassen, 1991;
Tinsley and Deen, 1991; Soon et al., 1996;
Svensmark, 1998; Beer et al., 2000;
Egorova et al., 2000; Soon et al., 2000;
Björck et al., 2001; Bond et al., 2001;
Hodell et al., 2001; Kromer et al., 2001;
Labitzke and Weber, 2001; Neff et al.,
2001; Todd and Kniveton, 2001; Pang and
Yau, 2002; Solanki, 2002). These correlations
mostly surpass those, if any, for the
coeval climate and CO2. Empirical observations
indicate that the climate link could
be via solar wind modulation of the
galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) (Tinsley
and Deen, 1991; Svensmark, 1998; Marsh
and Svensmark, 2000; Todd and
Kniveton, 2001; Shaviv, 2002a, 2002b)
because an increase in solar activity results
not only in enhanced thermal energy
flux, but also in more intense solar wind
that attenuates the CRF reaching Earth.
The CRF, in turn, correlates convincingly
with the low-altitude cloud cover on time
scales from days (Forbush phenomenon)
to decades (sun spot cycle). The postulated
causation sequence is therefore:
brighter sun => enhanced thermal flux +
solar wind => muted CRF => less lowlevel
clouds => less albedo => warmer
climate. Diminished solar activity results
in an opposite effect. The apparent departure
from this pattern in the 1990s
(Solanki, 2002) may prove to be a satellite
calibration problem (Marsh and
Svensmark, 2003).”
Nir J. Shaviv and Jan Veizer, “Celectial Driver of Phanerozoic Climate?” GSA Today, July 2003, p. 5

"Not until six years later would they be able to test the proposed mechanism in a lab. In 2006, Svensmark assembled a team at the Danish National Space Center to undertake an elaborate experiment in a reaction chamber the size of a small room. Dubbed SKY (Danish for "cloud"), the experiment mimicked salient features of the chemistry of the lower atmosphere, adding ultraviolet rays to mimic the actions of the Sun. Naturally occurring cosmic rays were filtered in through the ceiling."

"What they found left them agape: a vast number of floating microscopic droplets soon filled the reaction chamber. These were ultra-small clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules-the building blocks for cloud condensation nuclei-that had been catalyzed by the electrons released by cosmic rays. They had expected some effect. The surprise was that the electrons acted as catalysts-each causing not one but several reactions before being lost to the environment. This strengthened their notion that a relatively small change in cosmic radiation could have a significant effect on climate."
Lawrence Solomon, The Deniers," (Richard Vigilante Books, 2008), p.155-156

"Close passages of coronal mass ejections from the sun are signaled at the Earth's surface by Forbush decreases in cosmic ray counts. We find that low clouds contain less liquid water following Forbush decreases, and for the most influential events the liquid water in the oceanic atmosphere can diminish by as much as 7%. Cloud water content as gauged by the Special Sensor Microwave/Imager (SSM/I) reaches a minimum ≈7 days after the Forbush minimum in cosmic rays, and so does the fraction of low clouds seen by the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and in the International Satellite Cloud Climate Project (ISCCP). Parallel observations by the aerosol robotic network AERONET reveal falls in the relative abundance of fine aerosol particles which, in normal circumstances, could have evolved into cloud condensation nuclei. Thus a link between the sun, cosmic rays, aerosols, and liquid-water clouds appears to exist on a global scale." Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark, "Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds," GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 36, L15101, 4 PP., 2009

An understandable explanation of this can be found at Henrik Svensmark, Torsten Bondo, Jacob Svensmark, "Cosmic Ray Decreases Affect Atmospheric Aerosols and Clouds," Draft source

"Explosive events on the sun provide natural experiments for testing hypotheses about solar influences on the Earth. A conspicuous effect is the sudden reduction, over hours to days, in the influx of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs), first noticed by Scott E. Forbush in 1937. Such Forbush decreases (FDs) are now understood to be the result of magnetic plasma clouds from solar coronal mass ejections that pass near the Earth and provide a temporary shield against GCRs [Hilary, 2000]."


Cosmic Rays allow ionization nuclei to form which causes clouds. When the sun has few sunspots we have more cosmic ray influx. Anyone doubting that can go look at the Be10 proxy for sunspot numbers.

From Wiki

"An increase in solar activity (more sunspots) is accompanied by an increase in the "solar wind," which is an outflow of ionized particles, mostly protons and electrons, from the sun. The Earth's geomagnetic field, the solar wind, and the solar magnetic field deflect galactic cosmic rays (GCR). A decrease in solar activity increases the GCR penetration of the troposphere and stratosphere. GCR particles are the primary source of ionization in the troposphere above 1 km (below 1 km, radon is a dominant source of ionization in many areas)."

"Levels of GCRs have been indirectly recorded by their influence on the production of carbon-14 and beryllium-10. The Hallstatt solar cycle length of approximately 2300 years is reflected by climatic Dansgaard-Oeschger events. The 80–90 year solar Gleissberg cycles appear to vary in length depending upon the lengths of the concurrent 11 year solar cycles, and there also appear to be similar climate patterns occurring on this time scale."

But of course, the AGW folk will continue to claim that the sun plays almost no role in our climate.

And compare the information and picture above with the picture of the albedo which began to strongly rise in 2000 along with the cosmic ray intensity.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

What a heat source can do to temperature--Geneva and Fairmont Nebraska

In this blog I have done a lot of looking at two nearby towns on the Great Plains. The reason for doing this is that such temperatures should be somewhat similar. They should not have strong bias's over short distances like 15 miles. Today's example is of Geneva, Nebraska and Fairmont, Nebraska, two towns merely 15 miles apart. These two towns are especially intersting as Fairmont has an elevation of 1641 feet and Geneva 1644 feet. No one can claim that there is a lapse rate of any importance between these two towns.

The thermometers are, however in a particularly good place to test out the urban heating of a house. Geneva's MMTS is located 12 feet from a house, in a neighborhood. Below is the picture.

Fairmont Nebraska's Stevenson Screen is sited at least 100 meters away from a house. It's station is shown below. Pictures of both stations are from Anthony Watts' site.

Geneva should be subject to heat being emitted from the house during the winter and thus should be warmer during the winter than Fairmont. This is precisely what we see. Every winter, Geneva, Nebraska is warmer than Fairmont by about a degree. This can't be due to CO2 because CO2 doesn't go up in the winter at Geneva and down at Fairmont. This can only be due to heat affecting the validity of the Geneva measurements.

Why in the world the global warming hysteriacs can act as if they are collecting data of sufficient scientific quality is far beyond me. As a physicist, I learned that the first thing one must do is ensure that the measurements are free of bias--and this is something that the climatologists are not doing.

I would point readers to my previous blog calculating how much heat is added to the radiation field of a city, even a small one, by our modern lifestyle. how energy use warms the earth

Saturday, April 24, 2010

Albedo made me warm and cool.

While doing some research on the earth's albedo, I ran across a Cal Tech press release, which basically says that the experiment has been run--the experiment being a doubling of CO2. And guess what, we survived. The fear among the climate hysteriacs is that we will heat the earth. It isn't CO2 per se, but the heating effect of CO2 that is the worry. The heating is what they fear. So, have we had heating this century equivalent to doubling the CO2 content of the atmosphere? Yes.

By using a combination of earthshine observations and satellite data on cloud cover, the earthshine team has determined the following:

= Earth's average albedo is not constant from one year to the next; it also changes over decadal timescales. The computer models currently used to study the climate system do not show such large decadal-scale variability of the albedo.

= The annual average albedo declined very gradually from 1985 to 1995, and then declined sharply in 1995 and 1996. These observed declines are broadly consistent with previously known satellite measures of cloud amount.

= The low albedo during 1997-2001 increased solar heating of the globe at a rate more than twice that expected from a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This "dimming" of Earth, as it would be seen from space, is perhaps connected with the recent accelerated increase in mean global surface temperatures.

= 2001-2003 saw a reversal of the albedo to pre-1995 values; this "brightening" of the Earth is most likely attributable to the effect of increased cloud cover and thickness.


Now,greenhouse gases can be treated as if they are additional heat input to the earth. This is merely treating the greenhouse as if it was extra solar output.

The radiative forcings have been calculated for all the greenhouse gases as a function of their abundance. These calculations are done by computing the way the radiation at each wavelength is absorbed and reradiated at different layers in the atmosphere, until it escapes to space. The present radiative forcings of each greenhouse gas (compared to their greenhouse effects in pre-industrial times) are:
• Carbon dioxide: 1.5 Watts per square meter.
• Methane: 0.5 Watts per square meter.
• Nitrous oxide: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
• Halocarbons: 0.2 Watts per square meter.
• Total from all greenhouse gases: 2.4 Watts per square meter.
Hence, at present carbon dioxide is responsible for 60% of the anthropogenic greenhouse effect, methane is responsible for 20%, nitrous oxide for 10%, and halocarbons for 10%. The total radiative forcing of 2.4 Watts per square meter is equivalent to 1% of all the energy absorbed from sunlight in the surface and atmosphere of the Earth, at present, and it will increase as greenhouse gas abundances increase in the future. source

Below is a picture from the Palle et al article showing the changes in the Earth's albedo. I modified it to show what periods would be warming and cooling and the approximate warming due to greenhouse gas content of the atmosphere.

A one per cent change in the earth's albedo is a change of 13.6 watts per meter squared. From the chart one can see that the earth's albedo has changed by more than a percent just over the past 30 years. Yet the greenhouse gases will only change the radiative forcing by 2.4 watts per meter squared. This means that we have experienced more warming that the hysteriacs fear CO2 will bring us.

The problem with the global warming alarmists is that they focus on a single cause for the warming and proclaim (wrongly) that nothing else can affect the global climate. Data from satellites show that the earth's albedo is a bigger driver of warming than are the greenhouse gases.

Wednesday, April 21, 2010

An Odd Solar Cycle

One of the things that is clear from most climatical research--when sunspots are rare, the earth cools. I know, I know some hysteriacs try to say the sun has little impact on the earth's climate. History simply doesn't support them. The period called the Little Ice Age, which was the last time glaciers advanc ed and actually over ran towns which had been inhabited from the beginning of history, was a period of time also known as the Maunder Minimum-- a period when there were almost no sunspots.

The mother of all spotless runs was of course the Maunder Minimum. This was a period from October 15, 1661 to August 2, 1671.
It totaled 3579 consecutive spotless days. That puts our current run at 17.5% of that of the Maunder Minimum.

By the standard of spotless days, the ongoing solar minimum is the deepest in a century: NASA report. In 2008, no sunspots were observed on 266 of the year’s 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless days (85%):

It was about the Little Ice Age/Maunder Minimum that this was said:

"Villages built in what had been considered safe places were overwhelmed by glaciers in the early 17th century. Several of these villages are still ice-covered today."~G. H. Denton and S. C. Porter, "Neoglaciation", Scientific American, June 1970, p. 102

Anyone who has looked out side over the past couple of years, should know that the weather has been cooler than the global warming hysteriacs would have us believe. I believe that it is because we have had few sunspots over the past few years. During each solar minimum the sun often has no sunspots. Plots of the spotless days show that this solar minimum has been exceptionally low in solar activity. Below is a chart showing a comparision of the number of spotless days per month for the last few solar cycles. Each curve starts the month before the first spotless day. The blue curve, which is the current cycle, is clearly anomalous among the previous few sunspot cycles.

Sunday, April 18, 2010

An uncertain history

One of the jokes in the old Soviet Union was that the Soviet Union was the only country with an uncertain past. The Soviets had a way with altering previously published photographs to remove people who had formerly been there. The above two photos are among the most famous of these history-altering attempts. Grigory Grigoryevich Nelyuboff, simply wasn't there in May 1961, no matter what your lying eyes told you if you saw the original May 1961 publication.

Sadly, much of the climatological corrections have the same effect.Below are two graphs, one showing the original observed temperature profile for Seligman, Arizona. the other the 'adjusted' history. The data was taken from here

Notice that on the original unaltered temperature record, 1960 is warmer than the present time (makes one think about the tree-ring temperature proxy decline that was discussed in the famous 'hide the decline' email of climategate). But in the altered, and final dataset, 1960 is suddenly a full degree cooler than the present day temperature, or alternatively, editing alone has added a full degree of temperature difference to Seligman.

One will notice also that the raw data was hotter by half a degree, with 1960 and 2000 being close to 13 deg C. The adjusted data is down to 12.5 deg for 2000 but about 11.6 deg for 1960. This adjustment changes the trend, and the anomaly which is what most global warming advocates show. They show the trend in the anomalies, and the editing has changed the trend of Seligman.

Here is a graph with both adjusted and unadjusted data on the same graph.

Notice that history has been changed. History is variable.

Let's look next door at Fort Valley, AZ, a town at a much lower elevation. We see the same tendency to make the present hotter. First the raw data and then the 'adjusted' data.

If you look closely the entire history at Fort Valley has been changed to cool all temperatures prior to 1990. Look at 1910. On the unadjusted the peak was about 7.25 deg C. After adjustment, the temperature has been cooled to about 6.25 deg. The 1964 cold spell was cooled even further going from about 5 deg C on the unadjusted to about 4.65 on the 'adjusted'.

Here are both adjusted and unadjusted on the same graph. You can see how the 'correction' systematically cools the past in relation to the present, thus making the temperature TREND, which is what the climatologists scare us with, appear worse than it actually is.

To paraphrase a line from The Lord of the Rings movie, Be afraid, be very afraid, not of the temperature but of climatological corrections.

Saturday, April 17, 2010

Warmer Arctic Temperature brings more Arctic Ice

I swear that some of the lunacies that the global warming hysteriacs want us to believe are entirely illogical. Goddard Institute has proclaimed March 2010 as the warmest March in history. (

Here is a picture of the warm Arctic regions, also from Goddard Institute.

NOte that all around the Arctic Ocean is warm, up to 5 deg C warmer than normal. The strong red all along the coasts of the Arctic ocean should indicate that the Arctic Ocean's ice should be melting. But it isn't.

If this is true, then the climatologists at Goddard need to explain how it is that the arctic ice cover and thickness INCREASED in March. Below is a graph of the ice cover in the Arctic. The light blue curve is the area of the Arctic covered by ice at the end of March.

The area of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean continued to increase throughout March, which was up to 5 deg C warmer surrounding the Arctic. Surely ice cover wouldn't increase as much as it does if the Arctic was as warm as Goddard most assuredly mistakenly claims it is.

This discrepancy shows that the thermometer record is not to be trusted. It is a sham.

Friday, April 16, 2010

Polar Bears have seen warmth before.

That is the conclusion of a study reported in Science News.

"The discovery of this jawbone confirms that the polar bear was already a distinct species at least 110 kya, and as such any findings from genetic research based on this specimen could contribute to answering key questions on the evolutionary history of this species." source p. 5054

Analysis of the mitochondrial DNA show that polar bears split from Alaskan bears 150,000 years ago.

“Within this clade, we estimated the mean age of the split between the ABC bears and the polar bears to be 152 ky, and the mean age for all polar bears as 134 ky, near the beginning of the Eemian interglacial period and completely in line with the stratigraphically determined age of the Poolepynten subfossil.” Charlotte Lindqvist et al, “Complete mitochondrial genome of a Pleistocene
jawbone unveils the origin of polar bear, Proc. Natl. Acad. Science, USA, 107(2010):11, p. 5054

The picture below shows the temperature (black curve) from a Greenland Ice core back to 100,000 years ago. Notice the warmth.

This next picture shows the temperature of the Vostok core from Antarctica. Notice that the world was warmer than at present about 100,000 years ago in that core as well. That means that the polar bears survived the warm periods. The hysteria about their future is misplaced.

This, of course, means that polar bears lived through the last interglacial period when it was warmer than it is today. And we are supposed to worry about us killing the polar bears. What a laugh. The bears can take care of themselves.

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Global Warming = More Snow Cover?

Yessirreeee, step right up. You too can believe that pigs can fly and shat don't stink. Global warming, if it continues unabated, will cover our planet with snow in the winters. Beleive that because the government tells you it is so. Those thousands of scientists who tell us about the dangers of global warming also tell us that northern hemisphere snow cover has been increasing over the past few years.

Below is the claimed rise in global temperature since 1880. Looking at this searingly hot chart, which shows an incredible amount of warming this century, one would expect that snow cover would be declining. Such is not the case.

Below is the October snow cover anomaly from 1967 to 2009. the snow cover increases from 1987 to the present, yet the temperature rises. Do the climatologists expect us mere peasants not to notice this little fact?

But what about October's temperature anomaly from 1967 on. Does it correlate with the snow cover? No.

It is really interesting that when global warming was supposed to be accelerating, starting in 1980, that the snow cover was in general, consistent with the belief that the world was warming. Snow cover anomalies were below the previous period. But then, after 1994, in general, each October has seen above normal snow cover, all the while that the globe is supposedly rising to hotter and hotter temperatures and the CO2 levels (gasp) were rising as well. Clearly the only logical conclusion is that snow has a different melting point today than it did in the past because that is the only rational way to explain how the globe can get hotter and yet be covered by more snow. A friend suggested I call it HOT SNOW.

November's history shows no real trend in snow cover from 1967-2009.

And November's global temperature anomaly? it is inconsistent with what you see above in the snow cover.

One thing to note. Post-1990 the November snow cover has generally been above the average line, and that is inconsistent with the temperature graph shown above. Given the excessive heat the climatologists claim for the earth, it is surprising that snow cover has increased from 1980 to the present.

Now in December, the trend for more snow cover as the world warms continues after that brief November interlude.

Here is how the climatologists say December has warmed. Note how different this curve is.

Amazingly as the climatologists have proclaimed that the world is warming as evidenced by the NASA graph above, the December snow cover has been above normal for all but 4 years since 1989! That is a lot of snow given such an extremely warm world they claim.

What about January? Well, once again the climate hysteriacs would want us not to pay attention to the data. They want you to believe them, not the data. January shows a strong increase in snow cover over the past few years.

And January's global temperature anomaly

A glance again at the temperature curve above would not lead one to expect such an increase in snow cover from the hot world we live in. Yet the climatologists think we are too stupid to notice this issue.

What about February? Below are the two relevant charts, snowcover then temperature.

Clearly one would not expect the snow cover to rise over the years just as the snow cover also rises. Clearly something is wrong with what the global warming hysteriacs are telling us.

And of course, there is today comes a report that the Arctic ice cover is back to normal levels--even though there is more CO2 in the atmosphere today than in 2001 when we were at this level of ice cover the last time. Ice and snow don't seem to recognize that the world is getting warmer.

The snow cover pictures can be found on the respective pages for the requisite month at source

The monthly temperature anomalies are retrived from source

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Solar output as the cause of the warming

In a little noticed paper, Charles Perry and renown geologist, Kenneth Hsu study the proxies for solar output and created a solar output model based upon that information. They use solar cycle harmonics to create their model, which matches the proxy data quite well.

The abstract:

Although the processes of climate change are not completely understood, an important causal candidate is variation in total solar output. Reported cycles in various climate-proxy data show a tendency to emulate a fundamental harmonic sequence of a basic solar-cycle length (11 years) multiplied by 2N (where N equals a positive or negative integer). A simple additive model for total solar-output variations was developed by superimposing a progression of fundamental harmonic cycles with slightly increasing amplitudes. The timeline of the model was calibrated to the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary at 9,000 years before present. The calibrated model was compared with geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence of warm or cold climates during the Holocene. The evidence of periods of several centuries of cooler climates worldwide called “little ice ages,” similar to the period anno Domini (A.D.) 1280–1860 and reoccurring approximately every 1,300 years, corresponds well with fluctuations in modeled solar output. A more detailed examination of the climate sensitive history of the last 1,000 years further supports the model. Extrapolation of the model into the future suggests a gradual cooling during the next few centuries with intermittent minor warmups and a return to near little-ice-age conditions within the next 500 years. This cool period then may be followed approximately 1,500 years from now by a return to altithermal conditions similar to the previous Holocene Maximum. source

They note that the warming seen this century doesn't match that which occurred in the Medieval Optimum. In other words, it was warmer a thousand years ago than it is now.

"However, geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence is consistent with
warming and cooling periods during the Holocene as indicated by the solar-output model. The current warm period is thought to have not reached the level of warmth of the previous warm period (A.D. 800-1200), when the Vikings raised wheat and livestock in Greenland. Therefore, the magnitude of the modern temperature increase being caused solely by an increase in CO2 concentrations appears questionable. The contribution of solar output variations to climate change may be significant.” Charles A. Perry and Kenneth J. Hsu, “Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change, PNAS, 97(2001):23, p. 12436

An interesting comparison of their model with the C14 production, which is related to the strength of the sun's output, shows that their model fits the known variations.

Their comment that the observed warming can't be due to CO2 alone is spot on. CO2 hysteriacs rarely seem to look at the source of all our heat--the sun.

Rates of Sea Level Rise

One of the claims by the Holocene denying climate alarmists is that the sea levels are rising faster now, due to man, than at anytime in geologic history.

An abstract in Nature Geoscience says:

Nature Geoscience
Published online: 14 June 2009 | doi:10.1038/ngeo544
Identifying the causes of sea-level change
Glenn A. Milne1, W. Roland Gehrels2, Chris W. Hughes3 & Mark E. Tamisiea3

Global mean sea-level change has increased from a few centimetres per century over recent millennia to a few tens of centimetres per century in recent decades. This tenfold increase in the rate of rise can be attributed to climate change through the melting of land ice and the thermal expansion of ocean water. As the present warming trend is expected to continue, global mean sea level will continue to rise. Here we review recent insights into past sea-level changes on decadal to millennial timescales and how they may help constrain future changes. We find that most studies constrain global mean sea-level rise to less than one metre over the twenty-first century, but departures from this global mean could reach several decimetres in many areas. We conclude that improving estimates of the spatial variability in future sea-level change is an important research target in coming years.

But such rates as mentioned in that article are not unusual, nor are they outside of the rate of natural variation. A recent study in Science studied the cave deposits in Mallorca and showed that the rates of sea level rise were as great as 20 m/1000 years, or 2 meters per century. And this was over 80,000 years ago when no automobile or coal-fired electrical plant existed.

"Specifically at Mallorca, speleothem
encrustations record a MIS 5b sea-level height of
~ –20 m at 85.4 +/- 0.9 ka and a MIS 5a height of
~ +1 m by 84.2 +/- 1.0 ka (10). The sea-level
drop after the MIS 5a highstand was very rapid
as well, because speleothem encrustations
record a height of ~ –15 m by ~78.6 +/- 0.8 ka
(10). These rates of sea-level change nominally
approach 20 m per thousand years..."
Dorale, et al, “Sea-Level Highstand 81,000 Years Ago in Mallorca”, Science, Feb 12, 2010, p. 861

That huge variation occurred without any human interference, yet the IPCC wants us to claim credit for raising the oceans at a rate of 3.1 millimeters per year (.3 m/century) when history shows that the oceans have naturally varied at 6 times the rate that the IPCC says should be blamed on us.

"Global average sea level rose at an average rate of 1.8
[1.3 to 2.3] mm per year over 1961 to 2003. The rate
was faster over 1993 to 2003: about 3.1 [2.4 to 3.8]
mm per year. Whether the faster rate for 1993 to 2003
refl ects decadal variability or an increase in the longerterm
trend is unclear."
source IPCC AR4 WG1p. 5

The Holocene denying, anti-geological hysteriacs should look to see what the history of the earth really shows.

Sunday, March 21, 2010

Snow in South Texas on 1st Day of Spring

I have mentioned several places that since Aug 15, 2009, I have had north winds on my ranch every weekend save two. This is highly unusual for a ranch this far south. This weekend was no exception.

Due to family circumstances I was unable to go to my ranch this weekend until today. I needed to mow. I got up early and drove the couple of hours to the ranch. Just as I was pulling into Crockett, I noticed something in my headlights. It looked like snow. By the time I had gone another 7 miles to the ranch, the snow was heavy, the roof tops were white and covered. It snowed all morning with some cover on the ground. I found myself mowing while it was snowing. I guess all in all we had about 1/3" of global warming up there today.

Yes, this is weather and not climate, but to have such weather for more than 7 months now, where the winds blow from the north, you lakes freeze for the first time since 1986, and a record low temperature for the area was set, it is clear that this isn't a normal winter.

Saturday, March 20, 2010

Water vapor accounts for 30% of the Warming

I noticed the following statement in a recent Science article.

More limited data suggest that stratospheric water vapor probably increased between 1980 and 2000, which would have enhanced the decadal rate of surface warming during the 1990s by about 30% as compared to estimates neglecting this change. These findings show that stratospheric water vapor is an important driver of decadal glboal surface temperatures. Susan Solomon et al, "Contributions of stratospheric Water Vapor to decadal Changes in the Rate of Global Warming," Science 327, March 5, 2010, p. 1219

Note in the picture below that the world started warming at an accelerated rate in the 1980s. Gee, do you think that water vapor might be more of a cause of the scary warming they have been claiming is due solely to CO2?

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Why Climatologists are not to be trusted

A friend questioned my continued distrust of the IPCC and the scientists therein. He said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Because I am involved in a startup company, it has taken me a while to get to this issue. The dishonesty in climatology has been a long time practice and it is documentable.

In 1996 the IPCC published the Second Assessment Report (SAR). Of that SAR report, Frederick Seitz, former president of Rockefeller University and former president of the U. S. National Academy of Sciences, wrote about the corruption of the process that led to the un-peer-reviewed changes in Chapter 8 which covered the scientific evidence. What had happened was that the scientists had approved a final version, which was supposed to go to press. But after the final approval and before the typesetting, changes were made to the text which removed any comments about doubts that climatologists might have. Seiter notes:

"Few of these changes were merely cosmetic; nearly all worked to remove hints of the skepticism with which many scientists regard claims that human activities are having a major impact on climate in general and on global warming in particular.
“The following passages are examples of those included in the approved report but deleted from the supposedly peer-reviewed published version:

• "None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases."

• "No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed to date] to anthropogenic [man-made] causes."

• "Any claims of positive detection of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced."

The reviewing scientists used this original language to keep themselves and the IPCC honest. I am in no position to know who made the major changes in Chapter 8; but the report's lead author, Benjamin D. Santer, must presumably take the major responsibility.”
Frederick Seiter, A Major Deception on Global Warming Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 source

Clearly whoever did that editing didn’t want the public to see that there was doubt among the climatologicical community. Seitz further noted,

“This IPCC report, like all others, is held in such high regard largely because it has been peer-reviewed. That is, it has been read, discussed, modified and approved by an international body of experts. These scientists have laid their reputations on the line. But this report is not what it appears to be--it is not the version that was approved by the contributing scientists listed on the title page. In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.” Frederick Seiter, A Major Deception on Global Warming Wall Street Journal, June 12, 1996 source

Elimination of Boreholes.

For over 100 years, it has been scientific knowledge that the Medieval period was warmer than today. That was the standard belief in climatological circles. But if that was true, then today’s warming is nothing very spectactular, unusual or unprecedented. H. H. Lamb, the founder of the Climate Research Unit gathered much evidence for the Medieval Warm period.

"In central Norway the area of settlement, forest clearance and cultivation, which appears to have been more or less static since early iron age times, spread rather rapidly 100-200 m farther up the valleys and hillsides in the course of about two centuries from around A. D. 800; it retreated as decisively in the 14th century - partly owing to the Black Death, though the higher level farms were left unoccupied for hundreds of years thereafter, and in some areas further farms were abandoned before the advancing glaciers as late as 1743."~H. H. Lamb, "The Early Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1, 1965, p. 16

"The Arctic pack ice was so much less extensive than in recent times that appearances of drift ice near Iceland and Greenland south of 70[deg] N, were apparently rare in the 10th century and unknown between 1020 and 1194, when a rapid increase of frequency caused a permanent change of shipping routes. Brooks suggested that the Arctic Ocean became ice-free in the summers of this epoch, as in the Climatic Optimum; but it seems more probable that there was some 'permanent' ice, limited to areas north of 80[deg] N."~H. H. Lamb, "The Medieval Warm Epoch and its Sequel", Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology, 1:1965, p. 15-16

And it wasn't just a European affair:

"In the period from about AD 500 to 1800, nine minima are
recorded in the d18O curve. Three minima of d18O at about ad
1550, 1650 and 1750 correspond with the most severe cold climate,
which occurred between ad 1550 and 1700 (Lamb, 1966).
There is an obvious warm period represented by the high d18O
from around ad 1100 to 1200 which may correspond to the Medieval
Warm Epoch of Europe (Lamb, 1966). At that time, the
northern boundary of the cultivation of citrus tree (Citrus reticulata
Blanco) and Boehmeria nivea (a perennial herb), both subtropical
and thermophilous plants, moved gradually into the northern
part of China, and it has been estimated that the annual mean
temperature was 0.9–1.0[deg] C higher than at present (Zhang, 1994)."

Y. T. Hong, et al, "Response of climate to solar forcing recorded in a 6000-year 18O time-series of Chinese peat cellulose," The Holocene, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1-7 (2000), p. 4

The existence of this warm period was a thorn in the side of the climatological alarmists. It screamed that today's warming is nothing new. The medieval warm period became the enemy.

In 1995, Dr. David Deming, a geophysicist at the University of Oklahoma published a paper in Science, “Climate Warming in North America: Analysis of Borehole Temperatures,” Science, 268(1995), pp 1576-1577. That article addressed only the past 100-150 years of history and showed that the globe had warmed. That got Deming into the ‘club’ and in discussions of the climate history which in turn led to an amazingly honest email by a climate alarmist as to what must be done to advance their cause.

John Overpeck of the University of Arizona, and a lead author of the IPCC wrote to Deming, “We have to get rid of the Mediaeval Warm Period.” (source and David Deming (2005) “Global Warming, the Politicization of Science, and Michael Crichton's State of Fear.” Forthcoming, Journal of Scientific Exploration, v.19, no.2.

Science should not have the purpose of getting rid of something. It should be in the business of going with the evidence. Getting rid of the Medieval Warm period was going to take a lot of work. Two years after Deming’s work, Shapoeng Huang, Henry Pollack, and Po Yu Shen, published “Late Quaternary Temperature Changes Seen in Worldwide Continental Heat Flow Measurements, Geophysical Research Letters, 24(1997), p 1947-1950. The article analyzed 6000 borehole temperature records from around the world for the past 20,000 years. It was an amazing piece of work and confirmed the existence of the Medieval warm period. Below is the graph of temperature from that paper. Note that the Medieval period was warmer than the present and that means that we are not having any unprecedented warming.

But that was the wrong conclusion. Huang, Pollack and Shen got the message and they cherry-picked only 358 of the 6000 borehole measurements and cherry-picked the time frame (only 500 years rather than 20,000 years. From this drastically reduced data set they published an article proclaiming the modern warming was ‘unusual’. This from about 5% of the data and 2.5% of the time interval, all carefully chosen. They wrote in 1998.

Analyses of underground temperature measurements from 358 boreholes in eastern North America, central Europe, southern Africa, and Australia indicate that, in the 20th century, the average surface temperature of Earth has increased by about 0.5°C and that the 20th century has been the warmest of the past five centuries. The subsurface temperatures also indicate that Earth's mean surface temperature has increased by about 1.0°C over the past five centuries. The geothermal data offer an independent confirmation of the unusual character of 20th-century climate that has emerged from recent multiproxy studies." Henry N. Pollack, * Shaopeng Huang, Po-Yu Shen, "Climate Change Record in Subsurface Temperatures: A Global Perspective," Science 9 October 1998: Vol. 282. no. 5387, pp. 279 - 281 source

This was their new graph, created to support global warming.

They ignored the Medieval Warm epoch to advance their cause, even though they had to have known about their previous paper showing how NORMAL the current warming was--after all, THEY WROTE IT!!!. Note how different was their conclusion just a year earlier when they noted that there was nothing unusual about the 20th century.

Analysis of more than six thousand continental heat flow measurements as a function of depth has yielded a reconstruction of a global average ground surface temperature history over the last 20,000 years. The early to mid-Holocene appears as a relatively long warm interval some 0.2–0.6 K above present-day temperatures, the culmination of the warming that followed the end of the last glaciation. Temperatures were also warmer than present 500–1,000 years ago, but then cooled to a minimum some 0.2–0.7 K below present about 200 years ago. Although temperature variations in this type of reconstruction are highly smoothed, the results clearly resemble the broad outlines of late Quaternary climate changes suggested by proxies.” Huang, S., H. N. Pollack, and P. Y. Shen (1997), Late Quaternary temperature changes seen in world-wide continental heat flow measurements, Geophys. Res. Lett., 24(15), 1947–1950.

After the second, cherry-picked article was published, Pollack became the science advisor for Al Gore and worked on Gore’s movie. It seems that one must toe the line in order to advance in climatological circles. source

More changes to the text after review.

Richard Lindzen, a lead IPCC author gave testimony in 2001 to the Senate Commerce Committee. He said

“The preparation of the report, itself, was subject to pressure. There were usually several people working on every few pages. Naturally there were disagreements, but these were usually hammered out in a civilized manner. However, throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.

! The full text can be modified long after the authors have signed off.”

Now, in researching this issue, trying to find the above testimony, I learned another reason not to trust global warming advocates. I did a google search ( on March 14, 2010) on Lindzen and Senate Commerce Committee. I came up with the following list of links, notice the first one from Wikipedia.

When I clicked on the first link, I got the following evidence of suppression of dissent from global warming advocates.

These hysteriacs who claim to be on the side of science are really interested only in suppressing free research and freedom of expression. I got to the info I wanted by going to the cached pages. It seems that these AGW folk simply can’t stand to be criticized. They settle the science by not allowing any dissent.

Selection of the most alarming data.

In 2001, Stephen Schneider, a lead author of the IPCC noted that the predictions of climate rise were arbitrarily raised, not by the scientists.

"In the third assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climate modellers of working group 1 (see Box 1 for glossary) dramatically revised upwards the top-range limit of their predictions of global warming from the previous value of 1–3.5 [deg ] C to 1.4–5.8 [deg] C between now and 2100 (refs 1, 2). This sweeping revision depends on two factors that were not the handiwork of the modellers: smaller projected emissions of climate-cooling aerosols; and a few predictions containing particularly large CO2 emissions.” source

He went on to note that the IPCC rejected his advice that temperature rises be given probability distributions. Unfortunately the press loves to report the largest number; it sells more papers and the climatological bosses at IPC love it so they can get more funding.

The Hockey Stick

When Michael Mann published his now infamous no-hockey-stick graph of world climate history (above), Steven McIntyre and Ross McKitrick began to look at the work. After much work, they obtained Michael Mann’s methodology. Using it they found

“…the real problem lay with the ‘principal component analysis’ itself. It turned out that an algorithm had been programmed into Mann’s computer model which ‘mined’ for hockey stick shapes whatever data was fed into it.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 103

In the above source, McKitrick is quoted as noting that if the IPCC really had a strong internal review process they would have found the error before Mann’s work was published and publicized. Such behavior shows that the climatological community is not to be trusted.

And then there is this:

“When McIntyre and McKitrick then submitted a letter to Nature, pointing out some of the technical flaws in the study which Nature itself had published in 1998, the journal sat on their letter for eight months, before saying that it wouldn’t appear. By a Catch 22 trick, Nature explained that they could only be allowed 500 words to make their point. But since in the editor’s view, this would not be enough to explain their point properly, he did not propose to print anything.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Global Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 105

Nice! Science is such an open and honest profession, willing to accept criticism.
Antarctica’s ice and...

Censorship in Moscow

There is a bizarre case of Professor David King, the science advisor to Tony Blair. Booker relates:

“Supporting Blair’s initiative, with an interview headed “Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live’, Professor King claimed that the earth’s temperatures had risen to their highest level for ’60 million years’. At that time he said, repeating the point he had made earlier to the MPs, CO2 levels had soared to 10,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life. ‘No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life, he went on warming that, if humanity did not curb its burning of fossil fuels, ‘we will reach that level by 2100.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Gobal Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p.112

King is not a climatologist but a surface chemist. His knowledge of geologic history is that of a kindergartener. A meteor killed the dinosaurs, The CO2 levels were above 1000 ppm but that was ten million years after the dinosaurs died off during the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal maximum and during that time mammals lived all over the world, not just on Antarctica. Yet his was the voice of climate science for the UK government.

At a 2003 Russian Academy of Science conference on Kyoto, Dr. King attempted to suppress alternative viewpoints.

“He gave an ultimatum that two-thirds of the scientific contributors invited by the Academy were ‘undesirable’ and should not be allowed to speak. He appealed to Tony Blair’s office and the British Foreign Secretary jack Straw, who happened to be in Moscow, for pressure to be put on the Russian government and the conference organizers to insist that his demands were met.” Christopher Booker, “The Real Gobal Warming Disaster, (New York: Continuum, 2009), p. 114

Here is what Andrey Illarionov said:

“The British participants insisted on introducing censorship during the holding of this seminar. The chief science adviser to the British government, Mr. King, demanded in the form of an ultimatum at the beginning of yesterday that the program of the seminar be changed and he presented an ultimatum demanding that about two-third of the participants not be given the floor.

"The participants in the seminar who had been invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences, they have been invited by the president of the Academy of Sciences Yuri Sergeyevich Osipov. Mr. King spoke about "undesirable" scientists and undesirable participants in the seminar. He declared that if the old program is preserved, he would not take part in the seminar and walk out taking along with him all the other British participants.”

Sea-level misconduct

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner a tide guage and sea-level expert has been a thorn in the side of the climate hysteriacs for quite some time. Morner was appointed lead IPCC author for sea level changes for the 2001 report. It is reported that he was amazed that only one of the 22 contributors to that area under his direction were actually expert in sea level (Booker, op cit, p. 115

He notes how tide gauges are selectively picked to show what is required:

“Another way of looking at what is going on is the tide gauge. Tide gauging is very complicated, because it gives different answers for wherever you are in the world. But we have to rely on geology when we interpret it. So, for example, those people in the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change], choose Hong Kong, which has six tide gauges, and they choose the record of one, which gives 2.3 mm per year rise of sea level. Every geologist knows that that is a subsiding area. It’s the compaction of sediment; it is the only record which you shouldn’t use. And if that figure is correct, then Holland would not be subsiding, it would be uplifting. And that is just ridiculous. Not even ignorance could be responsible for a thing like that. So tide gauges, you have to treat very, very carefully. Now, back to satellite altimetry, which shows the water, not just the coasts, but in the whole of the ocean. And you measure it by satellite. From 1992 to 2002, [the graph of the sea level] was a straight line, variability along a straight line, but absolutely no trend whatsoever. We could see those spikes: a very rapid rise, but then in half a year, they fall back again. But absolutely no trend, and to have a sea-level rise, you need a trend. Then, in 2003, the same data set, which in their [IPCC’s] publications, in their website, was a straight line—suddenly it changed, and showed a very strong line of uplift, 2.3 mm per year, the same as from the tide gauge. And that didn’t look so nice. It looked as though they had recorded something; but they hadn’t recorded anything. It was the original one which they had suddenly twisted up, because they entered a “correction factor,” which they took from the tide gauge." " Interview: Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner: Claim That Sea Level Is Rising Is a Total Fraud" Economics, June 22, 2007, p. 34

Just because someone can produce a graph doesn’t mean that the graph is true. But this is also true of other data.

Urban Heat Island Shenanagans

In 1990 Phil Jones et al, published a study of the urban heat island effect (Nature 347, 169-172). The Chinese stations used were claimed to have been stable and not undergone any station location moves. Anyone familiar with the Wen Hua Ge Ming (Cultural Revolution) and prior events in China knows that nothing in China in the Maoist era was constant. The station data was acquired by a contact of Wei-Chyung, one of Jone’s co-authors. The station locations were unknown. Yet that data was used to convince the world that urbanization doesn’t cause a heat problem. The locations of the stations was challenged in 2007. Nature quotes Jones:

“I thought it was the right way to get the data,’ Jones says, but he now acknowledges that ‘the stations probably did move’ and that not having a detailed history of stations’ locations was sloppy. ‘It’s not acceptable,’ he says.’ [It’s] not best practice.’” Olive Hefferman, “’Climategate’ Scientist Speaks Out,” Nature, 463(2010), p. 860

Yeah, it isn’t best practice. But then, when in 2001, Jones learned that some of those stations had gone through several location moves, he failed to withdraw the influential 1990 paper. In a very hard hitting critique of Wei-Chyung’s research, Douglas Keenan writes:

"How much did Jones know about Wang’s fabrications? As discussed in my Report on Wang’s claims, it appears very likely that Jones knew nothing at the time (1990). In 2001, however, Jones co-authored a study, by Yan et al., which considered two meteorological stations in China (at Beijing and at Shanghai). This study correctly describes how the stations had undergone relocations, and it concludes that those relocations substantially affected the measured temperatures—in direct contradiction to the claims of Wang. Thus, by 2001, Jones must have known that the claims of Wang were not wholly true."

"On 19 June 2007, I e-mailed Jones about this, saying “this proves that you knew there were serious problems with Wang’s claims back in 2001; yet some of your work since then has continued to rely on those claims, most notably in the latest report from the IPCC”. I politely requested an explanation. I have not received a reply.
Douglas J. Keenan, THE FRAUD ALLEGATION AGAINST SOME CLIMATIC RESEARCH OF WEI-CHYUNG WANG, Energy and the Environment, 18 :7&8 :987 source

And the game continues.

There is the Himalayan glaciers are gone by 2035 mistake, where they used a non-peer reviewed World Wildlife Federation info paper to scare the world into thinking that there are dire consequences. source

The IPCC can’t even get right the part of the Netherlands that is below sea level.

“Dutch environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart has asked the U.N.'s climate change panel to rethink its assertion that more than half of the Netherlands is below seal level. Dutch authorities explain that, in fact, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level.” source

Even Science magazine is now cognizant of the problems that climatology has presented to the scientific community. They write:

“E-mails uncovered late last year revealed instances of scientists on the panel discussing withholding data dn documents from those with opposing view, conspiring to keep contradictory papers out of influential reports, and encouraging colleagues to delete e-mails.” Eli Kintisch, “Scientists Grapple with “Completely out of hand Attacks on Climate Science,” Science, 327(2010), p. 1070

Note the title of that Science article. While Gerald North of Texas A&M said that the situation is completely out of control and Sheila Jasanoff said:

“The community allowed ‘the situation to get out of control,’ said Sheila Jasanoff of Harvard University. She said in general scientists had to connect better to the public. ‘There is a kind of arrogance—we are scientists and we know best,’ Jasanoff said. ‘That needs to change.” Eli Kintisch, “Scientists Grapple with “Completely out of hand Attacks on Climate Science,” Science, 327(2010), p. 1070

Science magazine shows its bias by claiming that it is the ‘attacks on climate science’ which are out of hand. In reality it was the scientists. New Scientist put it thusly, while reporting on a enquiry into climategate.

“However, written evidence submitted by the Institute of Physics in London claimed the hacked emails have revealed ‘evidence of determined and coordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions’ through ‘manipulation of the publication and peer-review system’ and ‘intolerance to challenge.’” Anonymous, “Jones Explans,” New Scientist, March 6, 2010, p. 4

Climatologists are not to be trusted and that is sad because science should be about truth not about political agendas. Yet in the hands of the climatologists, science got a very big black eye by their atrocious behavior.

Sunday, February 28, 2010

What a laugh--January 2010 hottest January ever!

The comical farce of 'climate science' continues its merry way with its band of actors never varying from the lines they were given by the IPCC. Thursday, with a straight face,Professor Neville Nicholls of Monash University in Melbourne, Australia proclaimed January 2010 as the hottest January on record! source

Yes ladies and gentlemen, one must admire the dedication of climatological science to march on in robotic sync even if they have to do it through 26 inches of snow dump over the past couple of days on New York City.

Well, much of Britain, North America, Russia and China have been blanketed with snow in the harshest winter in decades. I have a ranch in southeast Texas and since mid-August, it has had north winds every weekend except two. That is very unusual. And while my ponds froze to about 3/4 of an inch this year, the first time they have frozen since 1986, and that one cold January day I arrived to find hoar-frost on everything, I am, amazingly, informed by the climatological community that I wasn't feeling cold, I was really experiencing warming with those cold temperatures. Usually when it is warm, one doesn't have to break ice to allow the cattle to drink.

But, of course, that is anecdotal, and will be dismissed by members of the Church of Global Warming. So, what does the global analysis made by the NOAA say? It says January 2010 was the 4th hottest on record--Do you believe that? I don't. I can read the newspapers. But here is what NOAA says--don't snigger as you read it.

"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January 2010 was 0.60°C (1.08°F) above the 20th century average of 12.0°C (53.6°F). This is the fourth warmest January on record." source

What? It sure felt cold. Let's look at where NOAA says it was very warm in January. Below is a picture of the January 2010 temperature anomalies as published by NOAA and the site linked immediately above.

Do you all in New England think you have experienced winter temperatures 3 to 5 deg C higher than normal? For those of us who are Fahrenheit-ophiles, that is about 4.8 to 8.5 deg F warmer than normal. I bet you guys up in Yankee-land didn't even break out your sweaters this January. At least that is what NOAA wants you to believe.

But look at what the Boston media says about January:

< Back to front page Text size – + Record-breaking cold temperature reached in Maine
E-mail|Link|Comments (24) Posted by Bina Venkataraman February 10, 2009 03:02 PM
The coldest temperature ever recorded in Maine, a frigid 50 degrees below zero, was reached when a blast of Arctic air hit New England last month. The record is tied with a thermometer reading from 1933 in Bloomfield, Vermont for the coldest recorded temperature in New England history.

“. . .

January was a colder month than usual in many parts of Maine and New England. The record-breaking temperature was recorded the morning of January 16, after a mass of Arctic air plunged into Alaska and northern Canada, and traveled eastward into New England."

Yep, I expect that you hardy northerners can handle minus 50 in your T-shirts.

But look at the discrepancy: NOAA puts a 3 deg C warmer dot for January over New England, yet, Boston was colder than normal.

"The average temperature was 28.9 degrees, .7 degrees below normal." source

No doubt this discrepancy is because only NOAA thermometers sited next to heat sources are allowed into the climatological calculations. Seriously, how in the H can NOAA put out this stuff with a straight face?? I think this shows how political the science of climatology has become. Even when it is cool, NOAA and other climate robots claim it is warm.

I can also say that the 1 deg C colder dot they have in Texas over my Ranch can't possibly be true. January was brutally cold for these latitudes. I think NOAA is merely making it up because they beleive that the world must warm, therefore, they produce maps showing warming. Trust can be destroyed by things like this.

From a google search:

From Tennessee:
The Tennessean - Feb 3, 2010
"The average temperature at Nashville airport in January was 33 degrees, which is 3.8 degrees below normal. It was the 18th coldest January on record..."

From Ireland:
"LAST MONTH was the coldest January for more than 45 years in Dublin and for at least 25 years across the State, Met Éireann’s monthly weather report has revealed."source

From New Zealand:
"Overall, January 2010 was an unsettled month, being wet, slightly cool, and extremely cloudy." source

From Germany:

German business confidence hit by cold weather
Finance Markets (blog) - Kay Murchie - ‎Feb 23, 2010‎
Germany experienced its coldest January since 1987, which slowed construction and consumption

From China--the Yellow river froze over--a rare occurrence:

"The cold snap has strained coal and gas supplies in most parts of north China as the worst snowstorms in decades disrupted traffic and boosted demand."
. . .
"The cold weather also has left more than 1,000 km of the 5,464-km-long Yellow River, China's second largest, frozen, with ice of up to 50 cm thick."

Beijing was unusually cold having the coldest January temperature, minus 15.6 C, since 1951 when the temperature was minus 20.1 deg C. source

"It’s bitter cold this week, even for January. Beijing had its coldest morning in almost 40 years and its biggest snowfall since 1951. Britain is suffering through its longest cold snap since 1981 [AP]." source

The Atlanta Journal Constitution looking at that risable statement by Prof. Nicholls said,

"The National Weather Service in Peachtree City reported that Atlanta's average temperature in January of 38.5 degrees was 4.2 degrees below normal."

From Mongolia:
There is a picture of piled up goats outside a Mongolian house. The picture is dated Jan 23, 2010, and the article says that this winter's unusual cold 2.7 million head of livestock. That is a disaster--of course freezing your livestock is one of the things I always think about when I think of global warming. Don't you?

From Korea:
"On January 4, 2010, 11 inches of snow fell on Seoul, the capital of South Korea; the most in a single day since meteorological records began being kept in 1937." source

Northern Sweden is having near record low temperatures--near 50 C below.

From India:
"New Delhi – At least 17 people died as towns and cities in India’s northern states were hit by cold weather, officials said on Friday." source

From Kazakhstan, where temperatures fell to minus 45 C:
"January 19, 2010
ASTANA -- Public transportation was suspended today in the Kazakh capital, Astana, and four northern regions due to extreme cold, RFE/RL's Kazakh Service reports."

From Turkey:
"In January 2010, despite difficult conditions for cargo handling due to unusually cold winter, Klaipėda port handled 2,53 million tons of cargo." source

Jan 28, Turkey:
Siberian cold has gripped Turkey. Communications with hundreds of villages were lost.
Eastern and central Anatolia resembled the poles. The temperature in Erzurum has dropped to -34 degrees Celsius while temperature in Kars was -19. Engines of cars did not work because of the cold weather and fountains froze. Mogan and Eymir lakes in Ankara also froze."

From Peru, for the 4th year in a row the cold has come early and continues into January.

Of the southern hemisphere it is reported:
"Looking over the data for January in the southern hemisphere, Dr Methven says only South Africa comes out looking unusually hot." source

It seems difficult to understand how the world could be at record warmth while the temperatures have been so cold over such a large area. Maybe, we shouldn't listen to the climatologists, who can't seem to look out their windows to see what is really happening in the REAL world, as opposed to the computer worlds they live in.

Thursday, February 25, 2010

Worldwide Inability to measure temperature

I had a friend, who is a follower of this blog, who dismissed my examples of strong temperature differences between towns merely 20 miles apart as a US anomaly. He made the dismissive comment that the US constitutes a tiny percentage of the world's surface area. I had shown him data like that shown above from the US. While his assessment of the area of the US is absolutely true, he, an AGW advocate (whose confidence is being shaken a bit), didn't actually go look at any data from other countries. He assumed that I had no more studies than those done in the US. Below are temperature comparisions between nearby towns in China and in the UK. Note that the problems I have presented for US cities is also present in other areas of the world.

In the China examples, I either have both stations plotted together or I have subtracted one from the other. Notice that some of the ANNUAL AVERAGE temperature differences are as much as 10 deg Centigrade.

Temperatures for the UK show the same problem as for the US and China.

The problems of measuring temperature are the same around the world.

Sunday, February 21, 2010

IPCC Authors Now Say Ocean's Rise Not Certain

In spite of repeatedly being told that the world is going to end by the Holocene denying climatologists and being repeatedly told that it is settled science that the ocean levels are going to rise and drown those Bangladeshi's, (whom it seems, are incapable of moving out of the way of the rising waters), it is now uncertain if or how much the oceans will rise.

The authors of a Nature Geoscience paper, have now retracted the paper whose abstract said

It is difficult to project sea-level rise in response to warming climates by the end of the century, especially because the response of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to warming is not well understood1. However, sea-level fluctuations in response to changing climate have been reconstructed for the past 22,000 years from fossil data, a period that covers the transition from the Last Glacial Maximum to the warm Holocene interglacial period. Here we present a simple model of the integrated sea-level response to temperature change that implicitly includes contributions from the thermal expansion and the reduction of continental ice. Our model explains much of the centennial-scale variability observed over the past 22,000 years, and estimates 4–24 cm of sea-level rise during the twentieth century, in agreement with the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change1 (IPCC). In response to the minimum (1.1 °C) and maximum (6.4 °C) warming projected for AD 2100 by the IPCC models, our model predicts 7 and 82 cm of sea-level rise by the end of the twenty-first century, respectively. The range of sea-level rise is slightly larger than the estimates from the IPCC models of 18–76 cm, but is sufficiently similar to increase confidence in the projections. Mark Siddall1, Thomas F. Stocker & Peter U. Clark, "Constraints on future sea-level rise from past sea-level change," Nature Geoscience 2, 571 - 575 (2009) Source

Now, the authors have retracted the paper. It seems that after scaring everyone about death by drowning, they have made serious mistakes.

In a statement the authors of the paper said: "Since publication of our paper we have become aware of two mistakes which impact the detailed estimation of future sea level rise. This means that we can no longer draw firm conclusions regarding 21st century sea level rise from this study without further work.

"One mistake was a miscalculation; the other was not to allow fully for temperature change over the past 2,000 years. Because of these issues we have retracted the paper and will now invest in the further work needed to correct these mistakes."

It seems that the mistakes now being found in this "settled science" are legion. Can we trust anything these guys did?

Monday, February 15, 2010

Another IPCC mistake--Bias with residence time

Table 1 of the IPCC TAR WG1 report says that the time CO2 stays in the atmosphere before being removed is somewhere between 5 and 200 years. They give NO scientific reference for that 200 year residence time. source. But first, a definition of residence time.

When one puts a gas or dust or anything into the atmosphere or ocean natural chemical processes will tend to remove individual atoms and molecules and lock them away in another form. In the case of CO2, trees, algae and chemical weathering remove CO2 from the atmosphere. The residence time, is the time it takes for half of the molecules to be removed from the atmosphere. In the case of CO2 the residence time can be calculated from the nuclear bomb C14.

In the 1950s and 1960s many nuclear bombs were tested in the atmosphere. That caused a spike in atmospheric C14 all of which ended up eventually in carbon dioxide. In 1963 the atmospheric test ban went into effect and the carbon dioxide containing Carbon 14 was at a maximum. Since that time the bomb created carbon dioxide has been continuously removed from the atmosphere and the half-life is less than 12 years.

This has huge implications for claims by global warming hysteriacs. The atmosphere contains 750 billion tonnes of CO2.

"Anthropogenic CO2 emissions are
only about 3% of the natural carbon cycle and less than 1% of
the atmospheric reservoir of carbon of 750 Gt. The vast majority
of CO2 fluxes are natural.
Source: C. R. DE FREITAS
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous? BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327, p. 301

Given the half-life (residence time) for CO2, it means that each year 750/12 or 62.5 Gigatonnes of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere each year. Most estimates say that the residence time is 5-7 years, so this bomb related argument is not the most stringent one could use.

So, how much CO2 do humans emit each year? The answer is an amazing 1/10th of the amount removed each year.

"Each year, human activity — primarily the use of coal, oil,
natural gas and production of cement — emits about 6.5 Gt of
carbon into the atmosphere. Despite this, the annual rate of
increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is highly variable, falling
close to zero in some years (for example, in 1992) and declining
in others (for example, in 1998). In general, data show that
human-caused CO2 is levelling off, despite increased emissions
(Figs. 2, 3). This is believed to be the result of natural stabilizing
feedbacks. Carbon dioxide is food for plants. The more
there is, the more they use."

Source: C. R. DE FREITAS Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous? BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY
VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327, p. 300

We put out 6.5 gigatonnes of carbon and the natural systems put out 9 times+ what we do. Given this, it is very unlikely that humans are the main cause of the rise in CO2, natural processes are responsible in large measure. Segalstad writes:

"Both radioactive and stable carbon isotopes show that the real atmospheric CO2
residence time (lifetime) is only about 5 years, and that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is maximum 4%. Any CO2 level rise beyond this can only come from a much larger, but natural, carbon reservoir with much higher 13-C/12-C isotope ratio than that of the fossil fuel pool, namely from the ocean, and/or the lithosphere, and/or the Earth's interior."
Source: Tom V. Segalstad, "Carbon cycle modelling and the residence time of natural and anthropogenic atmospheric CO2:
on the construction of the "Greenhouse Effect Global Warming" dogma." source

The data doesn't support the IPCC contention that carbon dioxide has a residence time of 200 years. If that were true, we should have far more C14-based carbon dioxide in the atmosphere than we do. Its short residence time shows that the IPCC is simply making this up as they go along.